This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
what makes you sure that Neil Armstrong once occupied the moon? Pewkiw (Talk or Die!!!) 05:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The definition of synodic period is the same as orbital period
116.251.32.210 ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Dee Aitchess
They have names for every kind of moon: full, crescent, half, new, waxing, waning, gibbous, harvest, blood, wolf, blue, etc, etc, etc. I find it negligent to simply call this, "seeing the moon during the day." That's right. There's no term for it. I again hereby claim this- Boomer's Moon
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I am reading this wrong but the first sentence of the section seems to contradict the third paragraph
"Liquid water cannot persist on the lunar surface.
In years since, signatures of water have been found to exist on the lunar surface.[98] ...
The 2008 Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft has since confirmed the existence of surface water ice, using the on-board Moon Mineralogy Mapper. The spectrometer observed absorption lines common to hydroxyl, in reflected sunlight, providing evidence of large quantities of water ice, on the lunar surface." 141.156.187.235 ( talk) 12:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing here on the published (peer-reviewed) findings the Chinese made in 2019. The Exploration section needs to be rewritten, imho. There's way, way too much about failed projects (like the Google prize, it was a bust and deserves little here (maybe just a "see also" link)). I think the failed missions should be deleted or at least moved to their own section or even better table; how much needs to be said about complete failures? There's also nothing (that I saw) about the private Israeli mission which crashed but which left thousands of tardigraves on the Moon, some of which may still be resuscitated from their dormant, dessicated state (although as far as I am aware, the record is only 10 days in space (hard vacuum), and the crash was in April, almost 5 months ago, iirc.) At the very least it is intentional bio-contamination and in that way precedent setting. I seem to recall something the US Trump administration did which puts the current treaties under stress, but I don't recall the details. Anyway, in my opinion, the Exploration section is a mess. It makes no sense to me to write about exploration in anything other than chronological fashion, and yet it seems that countries have their own paragraphs with newer material spliced onto the end of that paragraph. So, to see what's happened in the last couple of years you have to read thru the entire 21st Century! Lame. 40.142.185.108 ( talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I totaly agree,I recently added something and I didnt know where to put it in the whole section, because most of it is for example under the header "By spacecraft", why is that on top? ... I started now by changing the selective header of "Ancient and medieval studies" to "Before spaceflight", you might put in another section like "Before optical instruments", but I dont know if that level of detail is maybe better on the dedicated article of Exploration of the Moon. ... What I am also confused by (but also in other articles) is the difference of ancient observation and the different section of "In culture", e.g. some calender history is duplicated. Nsae Comp ( talk) 04:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a slight discrepancy between the mean radius listed in the infobox and the radius listed at [4]. The number in the infobox seems to take the plain average between the equatorial and polar radii, which isn't quite right. The generally accepted lunar datum put forward by the IAU is called Moon 2000 [1], which is a perfect sphere with a radius of 1737.4km. This corresponds nicely with that NASA fact sheet. I'm not trusted enough to actually make the edit myself, though, so if someone could update it that would be much appreciated :) Ispace-dan ( talk) 12:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
While I would favor capitalizing 'moon' on logical grounds, it seems to me that according to Wikipedia rules, it should be lower case. looking through the archives, I could not find reason for it to be capitalized. Both Webster's and Oxford are cited as using lower case. Kdammers ( talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the Moon (and other celestial objects) should have the imperial measurements as well as metric for their geometries, distances and velocities. Many interesting correlations can be revealed in miles and inches that just aren't obvious in meters. Both measures are valuable. JeffSaucerman ( talk) 00:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would advise you to remove this statement from the top of the article occasionally distinguished as Luna As Luna is not a English word but Spanish or Latin word 24.39.37.130 ( talk) 21:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel) 21:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)The distance from the center of the Earth to the Earth - Moon Barycenter is 4671 Km, not 4641 Km.
The Mass of the Earth is about 81.301 times the Mass of the Moon which has a mass of 1.0. The E - M System has a mass of 82.301 so the distance is 384405 km / 82.301 = 4670.7 km. Rounding up gives 4671 km. A mass of 81.301 orbiting at a distance of 1.0 is balanced by a mass of 1.0 orbiting at a distance of 81.301, but, the total distance between the masses is 82.301. The System is co-linear, co-orbiting, balanced, and, mass and distance proportional. Notice that the total mass of the system is 82.301, and the total distance is 82.301. 98.245.216.62 ( talk) 17:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is the article's name not "Luna (Moon)" or something of the like? It's the Moon's official name and there's already a "Moon" page, where that name is already used better than here. Aardwolf68 ( talk) 22:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
But we also use the Roman/Greek versions of the Moons for the other planets, so why is this any different? Aardwolf68 ( talk) 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The moon is really important in human history 94.204.23.186 ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 94.204.23.186 ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
60.254.11.169 ( talk) 07:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
71.167.165.10 ( talk) 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Technically in moon years which consist of 27 days, the moon would be in its own years it would be 60833333333.3 moon years old.
On the straight line (or nearly) that is going nearly (or no) with straight line his diameter.
And once this time. The 5-th postulate of Evklid is not with needs. If the 2-nd line was no stright - where they?
176.59.201.226 ( talk) 21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In paragraph 1 of this article it states the following "The Moon is an astronomical body orbiting Earth as its only natural satellite. It is the fifth-largest satellite in the Solar System, and by far[13] the largest among planetary satellites relative to the size of the planet that it orbits (its primary)." However, the statement regarding the size of the Moon in relation to Earth is incorrect. The largest natural satellite in the solar system of any planetary body is Charon, the largest of Pluto's moons. The argument from many will be that Pluto was demoted to Dwarf planet status, regardless of one's perspective on nthis, the fact is that Charon is a natural satellite of a planetary body, Pluto is not an asteroid, it is a body that orbits the Sun independent of other bodies except those it holds in a gravitational embrass. Could someone, as I do not appear to have access to do this, correct the line so it reads " The Moon is the second largest natural satellite of ny planetary body in the solar system, only suppassed by Charon, Pluto's largest Moon"
Here is a link to a Space.com article on the subject where it discusses the 40th anniversary of the Discovery of Charon by James Christy of the USNO.
Thanks you. JimFranklinPHD ( talk) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
QED... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can we get some miles here?.. as long as entire countries like the U.S. use miles as their dominant measurement system they should also be displayed alongside km for us non-metric users 2600:1009:B166:F67A:D4F:1BE:C49D:6C9C ( talk) 08:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I found today this source about a new modelling about the age of the Moon: [ [1]]. It says the mooon is 4.425 Billion years old (± 25 Million years). -- 193.196.128.254 ( talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The First People W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.182.19 ( talk) 04:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lunar System. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Lunar System until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Satellite of Earth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Satellite of Earth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
NonPopularPerson ( talk) 00:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi!
User:Goszei and I have been tweaking the lead. But I want to move the tweaking of one sentence here for now.
The current sentance is:
Now I want to argue that this sentance should connect to the sentance before it about the Moon's tidal locking, particularly the rotation of the Moon around its own axis, and only then continue about the sidreal month, since the sidreal month is not about the rotation of the Moon.
I find this approach useful, because continuing with the rotation can better pave the way for introducing the synodic period.
Further I would argue mentioning the lunar day helps the reader to take a perspective from the Moon, and with that introducing the rotation in a relateable way.
So I want to propose something like this:
PS: I tried to reduce/selectively use the word month to prevent confusion.
What do you think? Thanks for the work! Nsae Comp ( talk) 09:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
since it would be a sweeping change I figured I should put the question out first: The article uses "the Moon" capitalized, rightly because "moon" when not capitalized means any moon. But shouldnt that be the same for "lunar", like "lunar day" etc.? Nsae Comp ( talk) 00:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
FWIW - I just looked at a New York Times article in which neither "moon" nor "lunar" was capitalized. - Special-T ( talk) 14:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The lead has been edited quite thoroughly in the last weeks. The most recent was to reduce the number of paragraphs and make the first paragraph into a comprehensive introduction to the "most important" things to say about the Moon.
In the course of that content about the origin of the Moon was moved to the para about human activity on the Moon. Even though I like the way this combination was solved, I think the combination is misplaced, not only because discoveries regarding the Moon's origin are not only based on the work of Apollo. To reduce paras I have suggested not to combine the Moon's history with its human presence but instead move the two paras about humans and the Moon together and add the part about the Moon's origin to another para. This way human presence can be seen as a historic product of human persectives of the Moon.
PS: I am for keeping comparative examples about the size of the Moon in the lead, but not in the first para. In my opinion the first para should be about defining the Moon and about attributes which shape its most important relations like its relation and impact on Earth, e.g. the tidal effects. Nsae Comp ( talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-Is the crescent next to the word 'Moon' needed? It makes it look informal, but I didn't want to just remove it.- Flappy Pigeon ( talk) 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I and @ Goszei: have a little back and forth editing going in the lead.
At the moment it says:
Previously:
Now the arguments go like this, correctly mentioned in the last edit summary by Goszei:
Now I want to argue for the following without having more back and fourth edits:
PS: lunar distance deserves its own subsection, at the moment I think it is only mentioned in the lead. Nsae Comp ( talk) 08:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
References
My 2 cents - don't use light-seconds as a measure of distance in the lede of a general article, especially one about something (the Moon) that literally everyone on Earth knows about (we can expect this article to have an extremely "general" readership). - Special-T ( talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A recently added image has the caption "waning gibbous moon...". Is it possible to tell from a still image whether it's waning or waxing? - Special-T ( talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
seems a little strange to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.67.46 ( talk) 23:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Near the start of the article we see four pictures, one is Lunar north pole, one is Lunar south pole.
Please make sure they are the taken from the same distance, and that one is not a closeup, compared to the other. Jidanni ( talk) 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi I just got some more info on the moon and I would like to change it so it is right. WIKIhowsn ( talk) 16:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has way too many images. They are competing for attention with each other and the text. Since the last FA review, this article has grown in readable prose size by a third but images have increased from 15 to a whopping 57. They cause MOS:SANDWICHING in the article body and layout problems (whitespace) in the appendix. Which of these images should be removed? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrong value is given for the moon's orbital inclination!! Please correct under Orbit from "The Moon's axial tilt with respect to the ecliptic is only 1.5424°,[144] much less than the 23.44° of Earth." to "The Moon's axial tilt with respect to the ecliptic is only 5.1424°,[144] much less than the 23.44° of Earth." Nojedi ( talk) 22:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This article claims the Moon is in hydrostatic equilibrium. However, the article List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System claims that it once was but no longer is. Seems to me that only one of these statements can be correct. Shinigami27 ( talk) 22:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Under the heading 'Surface conditions' in the 'Physical characteristics' there is the sentence: "The exposed surfaces of spacecraft are considered unlikely to harbor bacterial spoors after just one lunar orbit." 'spoors' should definitely be 'spores', could someone with edit permissions please fix? 2601:281:8280:21F0:A107:C74B:EA4A:D2DA ( talk) 23:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Thank you - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The moon is made up of 0.0008 percent of the same substance found in cheese 168.10.210.37 ( talk) 14:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit because math 2A01:4C8:826:6E55:70C1:8CF1:AB9D:88E4 ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Over on Wiktionary someone claimed that "Luna" is "frequently used in English across several domains" for the Moon, which long-time authors of this article know is a common misconception among science fiction fans. They linked to this article when asked for evidence, specifically: "Occasionally, the name Luna is used in scientific writing and especially in science fiction to distinguish the Earth's moon from others, while in poetry 'Luna' has been used to denote personification of the Moon." Based on this person's claim, it looks like this might be giving the impression that "Luna" is used with any sort of significant frequency, rather than being extremely rare outside science fiction. Is it possible that even "occasionally" is too strong a word? Maybe "extremely rarely" or "practically never" would give a more accurate impression of the actual frequency? (The only citation given for "scientific writing" is a single popular science book written by a non-scientist.) Since this is such a common misconception, it might be good to be extra clear here. Thank you. Cosmologicon ( talk) 13:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please mention the Sanskrit word “ Mrugank” as the etymological basis for English word “Moon”. Currently it mentions German word Mona which is incorrect. 67.70.30.165 ( talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Moon#Formation is "The impact blasted material into Earth's orbit...". Which I read as the specific orbit Earth has around the Sun. But the reference seems to be saying the material was blasted into orbit *around* the Earth, not around the Sun. I suspect that "...into Earth orbit ..." or "... into orbit around the Earth ..." would be more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.185.178 ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines pseudoscience as "statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method."
Here is why the Lunar Effect meets this criteria:
The sources given point to:
Thus, it is pretty fair to say that belief in the Lunar Effect is incompatible with the scientific method.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Atnyentye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Atnyentye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes ( talk) 17:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
83.142.248.108 ( talk) 01:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The moon is not a dwarf planet
Hi there I have mentioned this before but now I want to propose to mainstream the capitalization of the Moon also for Lunar, because it is inconsistent and grammatically wrong to keep writing Lunar small. I would like to go over the article doing this. What do you think? Nsae Comp ( talk) 15:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
While it's clear there is a logical case for capitalizing 'lunar', in this case I think we should stick with the apparent convention of using the lower case (except when referring to a specific thing like a spacecraft). Wikipedia isn't here to set standards, but to follow common usage. Cf. WP:UCRN. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This seems worth a mention. The Moon Disappeared in 1110 and Now We Know Why. Maybe it belongs on 1110 instead. Thoughts? Meonkeys ( talk) 18:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect قمر and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#قمر until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I reinstated a couple sentences in the section "Tidal effects":
Praemonitus reverted this with the comment, "Please provide a reference; this reads like WP:OR."
It's not original research, it's simple logic. Which part of it do you think is not true? The purpose of the "no original research" rule is to prevent speculations.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Which article should include this topic? Please don't tell me I asked in the wrong place because I have been all over trying to find the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Living on the moon" section of the article, please change "so far" to so far FuelUnits ( talk) 04:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Done thanks!-- TZubiri ( talk) 05:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Recent edits have left the article with numerous small sections, which is in conflict with the MOS:OVERSECTION guideline. It's particularly bad in the "Position and appearance" section. How is this an improvement? These need to be consolidated to reduce clutter and improve the flow. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The satellite moon seen by a person from surface of planet Earth is white colour satellite moon. The blue colour sky of planet Earth is blue colour planet Earth then white colour of satellite moon is white sky of satellite moon. Virapaligautam ( talk) 10:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The usual English proper name for Earth's natural satellite is simply Moon, with a capital M. The noun moon is derived from Old English mōna, which (like all its Germanic cognates) stems from Proto-Germanic *mēnōn, which in turn comes from Proto-Indo-European *mēnsis "month" (from earlier *mēnōt, genitive *mēneses) which may be related to the verb "measure" (of time).
The ancient Germanic religion of Europe depicts the moon as a person, a god in some phrasing. The moon and the sun are both gods that chase each other through the heavens. Which is why both gods feature in the days of the week, which are other Germanic gods. How is this not mentioned in the name section or any section of this article?
124.190.192.47 (
talk) 10:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Nsae Comp: The description of the radiation environment on the lunar surface in your recent edit as being, "10 times more than during a flight from New York to Frankfurt" seems overly specific to the point of being almost intentionally humorous. (Why not Chicago to Dublin?) I understand that's how it was worded in your source (confusingly being the ScienceAlert reference earlier in the sentence, not the Science Mission Directorate reference following the statement -- did you intend for your Science Mission Directorate reference to follow the statement about induced neutron radiation? -- and it is actually given as "five to 10 time more" in that source), but it would be better if we can find a reference with a comparison to high-latitude airline travel in general, so the specific route of the travel doesn't jump out as it does. -- ToE 22:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The last 2 sentences of topic “Natural history”, subtopic “Natural development” should be 1 sentence. I’d make the correction myself, but the article is (understandably) protected. Please merge the sentences. 24.112.172.117 ( talk) 13:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, whilst reading I noticed that the following appears twice in the article. "Since pre-historic times people have taken note of the Moon's phases, its waxing and waning, and used it to keep record of time. Tally sticks, notched bones dating as far back as 20–30,000 years ago, are believed by some to mark the phases of the Moon". I assume it's not supposed to appear twice in full, though it is in two different sections. JohnmgKing ( talk) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Item 5.3.1 states that "In the northern hemisphere it is seen upside down compared to the view in the southern hemisphere. Therefore the Moon's crescent can be seen in the tropics as a smile-shaped crescent Moon."
Actually, the tropics cover an area that spawns both hemispheres. The above phrase is incorrect because it wrongly implies that the tropics region lies entirely below the Equator (only half of it does).
I suggest completely removing the reference to the tropics since it can be confusing. I suggest rewriting the phrase as: "...it is seen upside down compared to the view in the southern hemisphere, where the crescent can be seen as a smile-shaped crescent Moon." PPUGNO ( talk) 14:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Osearth, in
this edit, you added anchor Earth–Moon system
to the anchor list at
§ Earth–Moon system. I've temporarily undone this for now. Can you explain what is it you are trying to achieve here? If I understand correctly what I think you want, then the thing to do is add a redirect at page
Earth-Moon System that targets this section:
#REDIRECT [[Moon#Earth–Moon system]]
.If there's an issue of hyphen vs. en dash, then add another redirect for the other format, targeting the same location.
By the way, something you didn't mention but I wonder if you ran into: did you notice that when you search for "Earth-Moon system" one of the suggestions is " Earth-moon system", and if you click that, it goes to Orbit of the Moon, and not this article. That is, we have these three that I'm aware of:
Two redirects differing only in punctuation and capitalization should normally target the identical article, so that's something else that needs to be fixed. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 02:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Earth–Moon system and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth–Moon system until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The Moon has a crater, 41 KM in dept from an asteroid named gibbous rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadasdqwe dwvnfdb ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
"The near side of the Moon is marked by dark volcanic maria ("seas")". This is wrong. The Latin for sea is mare, plural mares. Would someone like to correct the text? Professor Bernard ( talk) 19:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC). Just noticed that there's lots more of this error. Professor Bernard ( talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
In the future section of History of exploration and human presence it says: "Upcoming lunar missions include Artemis 1 and Russia's first lunar mission, Luna-Glob: an uncrewed lander with a set of seismometers, and an orbiter based on its failed Martian Fobos-Grunt mission" But as of 16/11/22, Artemis 1 has happend. Therefore, I think the mention of Artemis 1 should be moved to "Renewed Exploration" and the photo removed/moved 69.9.205.66 ( talk) 18:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there is a broken link to wiktionary for "Cynthian" in the adjectives section of the infobox change [[wikt:cynthian|Cynthian]] to [[wikt:Cynthian|Cynthian]] (capitalise the C) Mourecotelles ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that both versions are used interchangeably in this article, either with an en dash or a hyphen. I assume it should be simply a hyphen, as I see no reason for a longer dash, but I thought I'd ask here. Dr. Work ( talk) 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Is this something that belongs in this article or in another one?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
This article -- and every other wikipedia article in English --needs to include traditional "imperial" measurements along with metric. The fact remains that a large majority of the world's native English speakers, those in the U.S., do not use metric. The U.S. shows not the tiniest movement toward changing that. 32.214.22.0 ( talk) 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Lunye has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3 § Lunye until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
to be added to section: Renewed exploration (1990-present) In 2023, India's Chandrayaan-3 mission successfully achieved soft-landing on moon's surface near the lunar south pole. [1] GrandCanonical ( talk) 05:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) GrandCanonical ( talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fainlov West has travelled to mars and has even gone onto the moon. He is such a legend. 203.113.203.181 ( talk) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Give pics about moon and describe 49.145.185.131 ( talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
While reading the text, right in the first paragraph, I came across with the following complete sentence: "... Its diameter is 1,737 km (1,079 mi), which is roughly one-quarter that of Earth or the width of Australia, making it by far the largest and most massive satellite in the Solar System in relation to its parent planet and the fifth-largest Solar System satellite overall."
Theose numbers right in the beginning -- 1,737 km (1,079 mi) -- represent, infact, its radius, not its diameter. The moon'diameter is twice the width of Australia. Although the Moon is the largest moon with respect to its parent planet, it is the 5th largest in the Solar System, after Ganimedes, Titan, Calisto, and Io.
Thanks, Jorge Sampaio (User jsampaio) Jsampaio ( talk) 00:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Satellite Luna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Satellite Luna until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Terran Moon Luna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Terran Moon Luna until a consensus is reached. Certes ( talk) 11:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says "The Moon's mass is about one-sixth of Earth's...". Replacing "mass" with "surface gravity" or something to that effect may be less misleading. The Moon's surface gravity is indeed about one-sixth of Earth, but it's mass is around one-eightieth of Earth. 128.84.127.177 ( talk) 15:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I note that the 23 Oct 2023 article in Geochemical Perspectives Letters (at https://www.geochemicalperspectivesletters.org/article2334/) asserting a minimum age of 4.46 billion years for the Moon's formation has received wide media coverage. Might we appropriately reflect that in the article. cheers Geopersona ( talk) 11:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
"These maria formed when large impacts on the far side of the Moon heated up low lying layers of its crust on the near side." Is this really the mainstream view? Mostly I read about maria being formed by basaltic lava flowing through cracks into ancient impact basins, no mention of far side impacts. Assambrew ( talk) 22:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know when astronomers came to realise that the Moon rotates? Because tidal locking means that its rotation is not obvious, especially if your mental map of the universe has the Earth at its centre. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The mention that "the 13 notches on the horn may symbolize the average number of days from menstruation to an ovulation, or the approximate number of full menstrual cycles and lunar cycles per year" is dubious. It's pure speculation. The 13 notches could very well be an artistic representation of the ridges found on many types of horns, such as ram horns, and may have nothing to do with the moon. I'm thinking that this picture doesn't really belong in this article. Dhrm77 ( talk) 02:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the lunar libration animation under position and appearance to the higher quality animation: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_HD.gif Poopooman-ger ( talk) 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The mass of the Moon is given in kg, but the density is in g/cm3, although for the Earth it has already been corrected (thanks!) to kg/m3. Other celestial bodies should be reviewed and their data corrected. Mir.Nalezinski ( talk) 19:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's an extra curly brace (rendered) at Physical characteristics -> Surface gravity:
"1.622
m/s2 {(0.1654
g; 5.318
ft/s2)"
Xly4 (
talk) 16:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
what makes you sure that Neil Armstrong once occupied the moon? Pewkiw (Talk or Die!!!) 05:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The definition of synodic period is the same as orbital period
116.251.32.210 ( talk) 11:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Dee Aitchess
They have names for every kind of moon: full, crescent, half, new, waxing, waning, gibbous, harvest, blood, wolf, blue, etc, etc, etc. I find it negligent to simply call this, "seeing the moon during the day." That's right. There's no term for it. I again hereby claim this- Boomer's Moon
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I am reading this wrong but the first sentence of the section seems to contradict the third paragraph
"Liquid water cannot persist on the lunar surface.
In years since, signatures of water have been found to exist on the lunar surface.[98] ...
The 2008 Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft has since confirmed the existence of surface water ice, using the on-board Moon Mineralogy Mapper. The spectrometer observed absorption lines common to hydroxyl, in reflected sunlight, providing evidence of large quantities of water ice, on the lunar surface." 141.156.187.235 ( talk) 12:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing here on the published (peer-reviewed) findings the Chinese made in 2019. The Exploration section needs to be rewritten, imho. There's way, way too much about failed projects (like the Google prize, it was a bust and deserves little here (maybe just a "see also" link)). I think the failed missions should be deleted or at least moved to their own section or even better table; how much needs to be said about complete failures? There's also nothing (that I saw) about the private Israeli mission which crashed but which left thousands of tardigraves on the Moon, some of which may still be resuscitated from their dormant, dessicated state (although as far as I am aware, the record is only 10 days in space (hard vacuum), and the crash was in April, almost 5 months ago, iirc.) At the very least it is intentional bio-contamination and in that way precedent setting. I seem to recall something the US Trump administration did which puts the current treaties under stress, but I don't recall the details. Anyway, in my opinion, the Exploration section is a mess. It makes no sense to me to write about exploration in anything other than chronological fashion, and yet it seems that countries have their own paragraphs with newer material spliced onto the end of that paragraph. So, to see what's happened in the last couple of years you have to read thru the entire 21st Century! Lame. 40.142.185.108 ( talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I totaly agree,I recently added something and I didnt know where to put it in the whole section, because most of it is for example under the header "By spacecraft", why is that on top? ... I started now by changing the selective header of "Ancient and medieval studies" to "Before spaceflight", you might put in another section like "Before optical instruments", but I dont know if that level of detail is maybe better on the dedicated article of Exploration of the Moon. ... What I am also confused by (but also in other articles) is the difference of ancient observation and the different section of "In culture", e.g. some calender history is duplicated. Nsae Comp ( talk) 04:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a slight discrepancy between the mean radius listed in the infobox and the radius listed at [4]. The number in the infobox seems to take the plain average between the equatorial and polar radii, which isn't quite right. The generally accepted lunar datum put forward by the IAU is called Moon 2000 [1], which is a perfect sphere with a radius of 1737.4km. This corresponds nicely with that NASA fact sheet. I'm not trusted enough to actually make the edit myself, though, so if someone could update it that would be much appreciated :) Ispace-dan ( talk) 12:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
While I would favor capitalizing 'moon' on logical grounds, it seems to me that according to Wikipedia rules, it should be lower case. looking through the archives, I could not find reason for it to be capitalized. Both Webster's and Oxford are cited as using lower case. Kdammers ( talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the Moon (and other celestial objects) should have the imperial measurements as well as metric for their geometries, distances and velocities. Many interesting correlations can be revealed in miles and inches that just aren't obvious in meters. Both measures are valuable. JeffSaucerman ( talk) 00:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would advise you to remove this statement from the top of the article occasionally distinguished as Luna As Luna is not a English word but Spanish or Latin word 24.39.37.130 ( talk) 21:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel) 21:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)The distance from the center of the Earth to the Earth - Moon Barycenter is 4671 Km, not 4641 Km.
The Mass of the Earth is about 81.301 times the Mass of the Moon which has a mass of 1.0. The E - M System has a mass of 82.301 so the distance is 384405 km / 82.301 = 4670.7 km. Rounding up gives 4671 km. A mass of 81.301 orbiting at a distance of 1.0 is balanced by a mass of 1.0 orbiting at a distance of 81.301, but, the total distance between the masses is 82.301. The System is co-linear, co-orbiting, balanced, and, mass and distance proportional. Notice that the total mass of the system is 82.301, and the total distance is 82.301. 98.245.216.62 ( talk) 17:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is the article's name not "Luna (Moon)" or something of the like? It's the Moon's official name and there's already a "Moon" page, where that name is already used better than here. Aardwolf68 ( talk) 22:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
But we also use the Roman/Greek versions of the Moons for the other planets, so why is this any different? Aardwolf68 ( talk) 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The moon is really important in human history 94.204.23.186 ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 94.204.23.186 ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
60.254.11.169 ( talk) 07:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
71.167.165.10 ( talk) 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Technically in moon years which consist of 27 days, the moon would be in its own years it would be 60833333333.3 moon years old.
On the straight line (or nearly) that is going nearly (or no) with straight line his diameter.
And once this time. The 5-th postulate of Evklid is not with needs. If the 2-nd line was no stright - where they?
176.59.201.226 ( talk) 21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In paragraph 1 of this article it states the following "The Moon is an astronomical body orbiting Earth as its only natural satellite. It is the fifth-largest satellite in the Solar System, and by far[13] the largest among planetary satellites relative to the size of the planet that it orbits (its primary)." However, the statement regarding the size of the Moon in relation to Earth is incorrect. The largest natural satellite in the solar system of any planetary body is Charon, the largest of Pluto's moons. The argument from many will be that Pluto was demoted to Dwarf planet status, regardless of one's perspective on nthis, the fact is that Charon is a natural satellite of a planetary body, Pluto is not an asteroid, it is a body that orbits the Sun independent of other bodies except those it holds in a gravitational embrass. Could someone, as I do not appear to have access to do this, correct the line so it reads " The Moon is the second largest natural satellite of ny planetary body in the solar system, only suppassed by Charon, Pluto's largest Moon"
Here is a link to a Space.com article on the subject where it discusses the 40th anniversary of the Discovery of Charon by James Christy of the USNO.
Thanks you. JimFranklinPHD ( talk) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
QED... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
can we get some miles here?.. as long as entire countries like the U.S. use miles as their dominant measurement system they should also be displayed alongside km for us non-metric users 2600:1009:B166:F67A:D4F:1BE:C49D:6C9C ( talk) 08:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I found today this source about a new modelling about the age of the Moon: [ [1]]. It says the mooon is 4.425 Billion years old (± 25 Million years). -- 193.196.128.254 ( talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The First People W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.182.19 ( talk) 04:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lunar System. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Lunar System until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Satellite of Earth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Satellite of Earth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
NonPopularPerson ( talk) 00:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi!
User:Goszei and I have been tweaking the lead. But I want to move the tweaking of one sentence here for now.
The current sentance is:
Now I want to argue that this sentance should connect to the sentance before it about the Moon's tidal locking, particularly the rotation of the Moon around its own axis, and only then continue about the sidreal month, since the sidreal month is not about the rotation of the Moon.
I find this approach useful, because continuing with the rotation can better pave the way for introducing the synodic period.
Further I would argue mentioning the lunar day helps the reader to take a perspective from the Moon, and with that introducing the rotation in a relateable way.
So I want to propose something like this:
PS: I tried to reduce/selectively use the word month to prevent confusion.
What do you think? Thanks for the work! Nsae Comp ( talk) 09:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
since it would be a sweeping change I figured I should put the question out first: The article uses "the Moon" capitalized, rightly because "moon" when not capitalized means any moon. But shouldnt that be the same for "lunar", like "lunar day" etc.? Nsae Comp ( talk) 00:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
FWIW - I just looked at a New York Times article in which neither "moon" nor "lunar" was capitalized. - Special-T ( talk) 14:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The lead has been edited quite thoroughly in the last weeks. The most recent was to reduce the number of paragraphs and make the first paragraph into a comprehensive introduction to the "most important" things to say about the Moon.
In the course of that content about the origin of the Moon was moved to the para about human activity on the Moon. Even though I like the way this combination was solved, I think the combination is misplaced, not only because discoveries regarding the Moon's origin are not only based on the work of Apollo. To reduce paras I have suggested not to combine the Moon's history with its human presence but instead move the two paras about humans and the Moon together and add the part about the Moon's origin to another para. This way human presence can be seen as a historic product of human persectives of the Moon.
PS: I am for keeping comparative examples about the size of the Moon in the lead, but not in the first para. In my opinion the first para should be about defining the Moon and about attributes which shape its most important relations like its relation and impact on Earth, e.g. the tidal effects. Nsae Comp ( talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-Is the crescent next to the word 'Moon' needed? It makes it look informal, but I didn't want to just remove it.- Flappy Pigeon ( talk) 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I and @ Goszei: have a little back and forth editing going in the lead.
At the moment it says:
Previously:
Now the arguments go like this, correctly mentioned in the last edit summary by Goszei:
Now I want to argue for the following without having more back and fourth edits:
PS: lunar distance deserves its own subsection, at the moment I think it is only mentioned in the lead. Nsae Comp ( talk) 08:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
References
My 2 cents - don't use light-seconds as a measure of distance in the lede of a general article, especially one about something (the Moon) that literally everyone on Earth knows about (we can expect this article to have an extremely "general" readership). - Special-T ( talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A recently added image has the caption "waning gibbous moon...". Is it possible to tell from a still image whether it's waning or waxing? - Special-T ( talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
seems a little strange to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.67.46 ( talk) 23:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Near the start of the article we see four pictures, one is Lunar north pole, one is Lunar south pole.
Please make sure they are the taken from the same distance, and that one is not a closeup, compared to the other. Jidanni ( talk) 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi I just got some more info on the moon and I would like to change it so it is right. WIKIhowsn ( talk) 16:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has way too many images. They are competing for attention with each other and the text. Since the last FA review, this article has grown in readable prose size by a third but images have increased from 15 to a whopping 57. They cause MOS:SANDWICHING in the article body and layout problems (whitespace) in the appendix. Which of these images should be removed? – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 10:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrong value is given for the moon's orbital inclination!! Please correct under Orbit from "The Moon's axial tilt with respect to the ecliptic is only 1.5424°,[144] much less than the 23.44° of Earth." to "The Moon's axial tilt with respect to the ecliptic is only 5.1424°,[144] much less than the 23.44° of Earth." Nojedi ( talk) 22:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This article claims the Moon is in hydrostatic equilibrium. However, the article List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System claims that it once was but no longer is. Seems to me that only one of these statements can be correct. Shinigami27 ( talk) 22:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Under the heading 'Surface conditions' in the 'Physical characteristics' there is the sentence: "The exposed surfaces of spacecraft are considered unlikely to harbor bacterial spoors after just one lunar orbit." 'spoors' should definitely be 'spores', could someone with edit permissions please fix? 2601:281:8280:21F0:A107:C74B:EA4A:D2DA ( talk) 23:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Done Thank you - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The moon is made up of 0.0008 percent of the same substance found in cheese 168.10.210.37 ( talk) 14:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit because math 2A01:4C8:826:6E55:70C1:8CF1:AB9D:88E4 ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Over on Wiktionary someone claimed that "Luna" is "frequently used in English across several domains" for the Moon, which long-time authors of this article know is a common misconception among science fiction fans. They linked to this article when asked for evidence, specifically: "Occasionally, the name Luna is used in scientific writing and especially in science fiction to distinguish the Earth's moon from others, while in poetry 'Luna' has been used to denote personification of the Moon." Based on this person's claim, it looks like this might be giving the impression that "Luna" is used with any sort of significant frequency, rather than being extremely rare outside science fiction. Is it possible that even "occasionally" is too strong a word? Maybe "extremely rarely" or "practically never" would give a more accurate impression of the actual frequency? (The only citation given for "scientific writing" is a single popular science book written by a non-scientist.) Since this is such a common misconception, it might be good to be extra clear here. Thank you. Cosmologicon ( talk) 13:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please mention the Sanskrit word “ Mrugank” as the etymological basis for English word “Moon”. Currently it mentions German word Mona which is incorrect. 67.70.30.165 ( talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Moon#Formation is "The impact blasted material into Earth's orbit...". Which I read as the specific orbit Earth has around the Sun. But the reference seems to be saying the material was blasted into orbit *around* the Earth, not around the Sun. I suspect that "...into Earth orbit ..." or "... into orbit around the Earth ..." would be more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.185.178 ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines pseudoscience as "statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method."
Here is why the Lunar Effect meets this criteria:
The sources given point to:
Thus, it is pretty fair to say that belief in the Lunar Effect is incompatible with the scientific method.
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Atnyentye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Atnyentye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes ( talk) 17:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
83.142.248.108 ( talk) 01:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The moon is not a dwarf planet
Hi there I have mentioned this before but now I want to propose to mainstream the capitalization of the Moon also for Lunar, because it is inconsistent and grammatically wrong to keep writing Lunar small. I would like to go over the article doing this. What do you think? Nsae Comp ( talk) 15:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
While it's clear there is a logical case for capitalizing 'lunar', in this case I think we should stick with the apparent convention of using the lower case (except when referring to a specific thing like a spacecraft). Wikipedia isn't here to set standards, but to follow common usage. Cf. WP:UCRN. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This seems worth a mention. The Moon Disappeared in 1110 and Now We Know Why. Maybe it belongs on 1110 instead. Thoughts? Meonkeys ( talk) 18:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect قمر and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#قمر until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I reinstated a couple sentences in the section "Tidal effects":
Praemonitus reverted this with the comment, "Please provide a reference; this reads like WP:OR."
It's not original research, it's simple logic. Which part of it do you think is not true? The purpose of the "no original research" rule is to prevent speculations.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Which article should include this topic? Please don't tell me I asked in the wrong place because I have been all over trying to find the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Living on the moon" section of the article, please change "so far" to so far FuelUnits ( talk) 04:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Done thanks!-- TZubiri ( talk) 05:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Recent edits have left the article with numerous small sections, which is in conflict with the MOS:OVERSECTION guideline. It's particularly bad in the "Position and appearance" section. How is this an improvement? These need to be consolidated to reduce clutter and improve the flow. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The satellite moon seen by a person from surface of planet Earth is white colour satellite moon. The blue colour sky of planet Earth is blue colour planet Earth then white colour of satellite moon is white sky of satellite moon. Virapaligautam ( talk) 10:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The usual English proper name for Earth's natural satellite is simply Moon, with a capital M. The noun moon is derived from Old English mōna, which (like all its Germanic cognates) stems from Proto-Germanic *mēnōn, which in turn comes from Proto-Indo-European *mēnsis "month" (from earlier *mēnōt, genitive *mēneses) which may be related to the verb "measure" (of time).
The ancient Germanic religion of Europe depicts the moon as a person, a god in some phrasing. The moon and the sun are both gods that chase each other through the heavens. Which is why both gods feature in the days of the week, which are other Germanic gods. How is this not mentioned in the name section or any section of this article?
124.190.192.47 (
talk) 10:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Nsae Comp: The description of the radiation environment on the lunar surface in your recent edit as being, "10 times more than during a flight from New York to Frankfurt" seems overly specific to the point of being almost intentionally humorous. (Why not Chicago to Dublin?) I understand that's how it was worded in your source (confusingly being the ScienceAlert reference earlier in the sentence, not the Science Mission Directorate reference following the statement -- did you intend for your Science Mission Directorate reference to follow the statement about induced neutron radiation? -- and it is actually given as "five to 10 time more" in that source), but it would be better if we can find a reference with a comparison to high-latitude airline travel in general, so the specific route of the travel doesn't jump out as it does. -- ToE 22:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The last 2 sentences of topic “Natural history”, subtopic “Natural development” should be 1 sentence. I’d make the correction myself, but the article is (understandably) protected. Please merge the sentences. 24.112.172.117 ( talk) 13:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, whilst reading I noticed that the following appears twice in the article. "Since pre-historic times people have taken note of the Moon's phases, its waxing and waning, and used it to keep record of time. Tally sticks, notched bones dating as far back as 20–30,000 years ago, are believed by some to mark the phases of the Moon". I assume it's not supposed to appear twice in full, though it is in two different sections. JohnmgKing ( talk) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Item 5.3.1 states that "In the northern hemisphere it is seen upside down compared to the view in the southern hemisphere. Therefore the Moon's crescent can be seen in the tropics as a smile-shaped crescent Moon."
Actually, the tropics cover an area that spawns both hemispheres. The above phrase is incorrect because it wrongly implies that the tropics region lies entirely below the Equator (only half of it does).
I suggest completely removing the reference to the tropics since it can be confusing. I suggest rewriting the phrase as: "...it is seen upside down compared to the view in the southern hemisphere, where the crescent can be seen as a smile-shaped crescent Moon." PPUGNO ( talk) 14:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Osearth, in
this edit, you added anchor Earth–Moon system
to the anchor list at
§ Earth–Moon system. I've temporarily undone this for now. Can you explain what is it you are trying to achieve here? If I understand correctly what I think you want, then the thing to do is add a redirect at page
Earth-Moon System that targets this section:
#REDIRECT [[Moon#Earth–Moon system]]
.If there's an issue of hyphen vs. en dash, then add another redirect for the other format, targeting the same location.
By the way, something you didn't mention but I wonder if you ran into: did you notice that when you search for "Earth-Moon system" one of the suggestions is " Earth-moon system", and if you click that, it goes to Orbit of the Moon, and not this article. That is, we have these three that I'm aware of:
Two redirects differing only in punctuation and capitalization should normally target the identical article, so that's something else that needs to be fixed. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 02:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Earth–Moon system and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth–Moon system until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 03:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The Moon has a crater, 41 KM in dept from an asteroid named gibbous rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadasdqwe dwvnfdb ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
"The near side of the Moon is marked by dark volcanic maria ("seas")". This is wrong. The Latin for sea is mare, plural mares. Would someone like to correct the text? Professor Bernard ( talk) 19:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC). Just noticed that there's lots more of this error. Professor Bernard ( talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
In the future section of History of exploration and human presence it says: "Upcoming lunar missions include Artemis 1 and Russia's first lunar mission, Luna-Glob: an uncrewed lander with a set of seismometers, and an orbiter based on its failed Martian Fobos-Grunt mission" But as of 16/11/22, Artemis 1 has happend. Therefore, I think the mention of Artemis 1 should be moved to "Renewed Exploration" and the photo removed/moved 69.9.205.66 ( talk) 18:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
there is a broken link to wiktionary for "Cynthian" in the adjectives section of the infobox change [[wikt:cynthian|Cynthian]] to [[wikt:Cynthian|Cynthian]] (capitalise the C) Mourecotelles ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that both versions are used interchangeably in this article, either with an en dash or a hyphen. I assume it should be simply a hyphen, as I see no reason for a longer dash, but I thought I'd ask here. Dr. Work ( talk) 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Is this something that belongs in this article or in another one?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
This article -- and every other wikipedia article in English --needs to include traditional "imperial" measurements along with metric. The fact remains that a large majority of the world's native English speakers, those in the U.S., do not use metric. The U.S. shows not the tiniest movement toward changing that. 32.214.22.0 ( talk) 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Lunye has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3 § Lunye until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
to be added to section: Renewed exploration (1990-present) In 2023, India's Chandrayaan-3 mission successfully achieved soft-landing on moon's surface near the lunar south pole. [1] GrandCanonical ( talk) 05:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC) GrandCanonical ( talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fainlov West has travelled to mars and has even gone onto the moon. He is such a legend. 203.113.203.181 ( talk) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Give pics about moon and describe 49.145.185.131 ( talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
While reading the text, right in the first paragraph, I came across with the following complete sentence: "... Its diameter is 1,737 km (1,079 mi), which is roughly one-quarter that of Earth or the width of Australia, making it by far the largest and most massive satellite in the Solar System in relation to its parent planet and the fifth-largest Solar System satellite overall."
Theose numbers right in the beginning -- 1,737 km (1,079 mi) -- represent, infact, its radius, not its diameter. The moon'diameter is twice the width of Australia. Although the Moon is the largest moon with respect to its parent planet, it is the 5th largest in the Solar System, after Ganimedes, Titan, Calisto, and Io.
Thanks, Jorge Sampaio (User jsampaio) Jsampaio ( talk) 00:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Satellite Luna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Satellite Luna until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Terran Moon Luna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Terran Moon Luna until a consensus is reached. Certes ( talk) 11:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says "The Moon's mass is about one-sixth of Earth's...". Replacing "mass" with "surface gravity" or something to that effect may be less misleading. The Moon's surface gravity is indeed about one-sixth of Earth, but it's mass is around one-eightieth of Earth. 128.84.127.177 ( talk) 15:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I note that the 23 Oct 2023 article in Geochemical Perspectives Letters (at https://www.geochemicalperspectivesletters.org/article2334/) asserting a minimum age of 4.46 billion years for the Moon's formation has received wide media coverage. Might we appropriately reflect that in the article. cheers Geopersona ( talk) 11:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
"These maria formed when large impacts on the far side of the Moon heated up low lying layers of its crust on the near side." Is this really the mainstream view? Mostly I read about maria being formed by basaltic lava flowing through cracks into ancient impact basins, no mention of far side impacts. Assambrew ( talk) 22:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know when astronomers came to realise that the Moon rotates? Because tidal locking means that its rotation is not obvious, especially if your mental map of the universe has the Earth at its centre. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The mention that "the 13 notches on the horn may symbolize the average number of days from menstruation to an ovulation, or the approximate number of full menstrual cycles and lunar cycles per year" is dubious. It's pure speculation. The 13 notches could very well be an artistic representation of the ridges found on many types of horns, such as ram horns, and may have nothing to do with the moon. I'm thinking that this picture doesn't really belong in this article. Dhrm77 ( talk) 02:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the lunar libration animation under position and appearance to the higher quality animation: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_HD.gif Poopooman-ger ( talk) 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The mass of the Moon is given in kg, but the density is in g/cm3, although for the Earth it has already been corrected (thanks!) to kg/m3. Other celestial bodies should be reviewed and their data corrected. Mir.Nalezinski ( talk) 19:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's an extra curly brace (rendered) at Physical characteristics -> Surface gravity:
"1.622
m/s2 {(0.1654
g; 5.318
ft/s2)"
Xly4 (
talk) 16:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)